Important Point - Where there are more than one claimants for seeking family pension may invoke demand of succession certificate.

1. The only point involved in the present writ petition is that the petitioner, who is stated to be the second wife of deceased-Shri Bala Prasad Sain and surviving wife at the time of his death, is entitled to family pension or not ?

2. The case, as arisen, is that there was some dispute between the petitioner and son Sunil Kumar. The name of Sunil Kumar was mentioned in the nomination form alongwith name of the first wife who had expired on 14/12/1995. In the civil suit between the petitioner and Shri Sunil Kumar a compromise was arrived at and a judgment and decree was passed on 27/04/2005 whereby the petitioner and her son divided equally the benefits of PF, Gratuity of the deceased. However, the petitioner was not granted family pension by the respondents on the specious plea that she had no proof to show that she was legally wedded wife of the deceased and a succession certificate was sought from the petitioner vide letter dt.17/06/2005.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was admittedly living with her late husband and even if she has no legal proof to show that she was legally wedded wife, a presumption in law has to be drawn in terms of the fact that she has been continuously living with her husband for years together since death of the first wife. Copy of the voter list as also LIC have also been placed on record by way of rejoinder to show that the petitioner was legally wedded wife of the deceased Bala Prasad Sain.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the decree awarded, the learned trial court has not given a finding with regard to the petitioner being wife of the deceased Bala Prasad Sain.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that there is no provision under the Rajasthan Service Rules for submitting succession certificate by a wife for release of family pension. Although it is true that in cases where there is no nomination mentioned under Rule 58, succession certificate is required. Admittedly, it is not a case relating to Rule 58 of the Rajasthan Service Rules which is only with regard to release of Gratuity and it is also an admitted position that gratuity had already been released and has been shared by the petitioner as well as son of deceased Shri Bala Prasad Sain.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment in the case of Karedla Parthasaradhi Vs. Gangula Ramanamma (dead) through legal representatives and others: (2014) 15 SCC 789 wherein the Apex Court has held that continuous cohabitation as husband wife would be sufficient to draw a presumption of their marriage and held as under:-

“21. Coming now to the facts of this case, we consider it apposite to reproduce the finding of the High Court on this issue in verbatim, which is contained in paras 26 to 30 in the judgment:

“26. When the first defendant asserted that she is the legally wedded wife of late Satyanarayana, we have to examine the material placed by her to establish the said fact. It is an undisputed fact that the first defendant lived with late Satyanarayana. The first defendant claims that their marriage took place at Rajahmundry about 30 years ago. They lived at Rajahmundry for about 10 years. During their wedlock, she became pregnant twice and those pregnancies were got abort at the instance of her husband. Ultimately, she got her sister’s son adopted during the lifetime of late Satyanarayana. Later, they shifted to Rajahmundry, constructed the house and performed the house warming ceremony. Her name was included in the voters list as the wife of late Satyanarayana. She also stated that the deceased being the Pracharak of Viswa Hindu Parishad, he took all care to see that no photographs are taken either for the marriage or house warming ceremony or any other occasion. In support of her contention, DW-2, the neighbour at Vijayawada, was examined, who stated that the deceased Satyanarayana was the husband of the first defendant. They resided in